|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Jul 20, 2009 4:35:34 GMT -5
Think back to the last generation, and even the generation before. The cost of videogame development was spiralling, with very few titles making the money back on development. A handful of blockbuster titles would do brilliantly, while many developers and publishers were crippled and closed down or merged with other companies.
Then Nintendo had a brilliant idea. Reduce the cost of development in several ways:
1. Rather than advancing the graphics, while keeping gameplay the same... keep the graphics the same and advance the gameplay with a new input method.
2. Over time, development costs for a system go down. When a new generation comes along, the old toolsets have to be thrown out and new ones developed, at huge cost to early developers and publishers who want to take advantage of the higher sales of launch games. The Wii uses a modified Gamecube toolset, so anyone familiar with that system should be able to make better-looking games at a lower cost than they did last generation.
3. Nintendo is promoting original ideas. They want smaller developers to have their ideas realised - part of this is making the tools easy to work with, and part is providing a distribution method that makes it possible (WiiWare).
But if you read any interview with any big development house, the biggest moan you get is "The Wii is expensive to develop for, because we have to downgrade."
Smaller developers are putting out games no problem, so why are big developers so afraid of making games for the Wii? They hit a bigger market at a lower cost.
But there seems to be this mindset that making games for the Wii isn't worth it. That it can't cope with what developers want to do. But look at the Gamecube library - ambitious, beautiful, massive games... Yet when it comes to making those sorts of games for the Wii, you see less effort put into it than we saw on the underpowered PS2, not to mention the Gamecube.
I don't understand this mindset of developers, who for the last decade have been crying out for reduced development costs, yet as soon as the opportunity comes along, they moan about it.
Thoughts? Opinions?
|
|
|
|
Post by nocturnal YL on Jul 20, 2009 8:31:23 GMT -5
I don't know what "developers" you are talking about here, but I don't seem to think there's much of a problem here.
The only way for them to complain on all these would be multiplatform games. They have to use a different set of graphics and a different control to cater for the special setup of the Wii.
Seriously, if they treat Wii as a different set of platform rather than as part of the "lol OMG there must be three of them home consoles", things wouldn't end up like this.
I'm actually saying these with SEGA in mind. They made some Wii-exclusive games and some other games shared by PS3 and X360. And that's a good way of doing it - they aren't born the same, so why force them to be the same?
Small developers don't usually go multiplatform and therefore things won't end up like this.
That apart, I think another problem would be power differences. In the past, in terms of power, XB>GC>PS2. Now, in terms of power, PS3>>>X360>>>>>>>>>>>Wii. See the difference?
Once again, this is really just a problem with cross-platform games. I think some Microsoft rep actually talked on this, saying how he recommends people to get a Wii anyway, and then choose among the remaining two - not that he's anti-advertising, but they simply are different.
Wii isn't really that bad, though, besides asking players to read large, jaggy pixels.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2009 9:58:44 GMT -5
Like YL, I haven't heard about this either, but I'll admit that I barely keep up with VG news anymore (I learn most of it through here!), so I'll take your word for it. That said, I have the feeling that older developers have the same general mindset of older gamers; we all know where the public opinion is on the Wii compared to the other gaming systems, and public opinion always influences somebody.
Older developers are used to making actual, you know, games, not the shovelware that 99% of the Wii's library is. I doubt it's the fact that development costs are lower so much as the Wii is oversaturated with utter crap that there's no winning; try conforming and making shovelware, or stick to their guns and make gamers' games, one way or the other they get lost in the crowd. Losing the sales is the expensive part, rather than the cost of development.
At least, that's what I'd figure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Jul 20, 2009 11:02:40 GMT -5
I've been reading interviews, mostly over the last few months, and especially with developers at E3. I've seen a small handful online that mention it, but mostly they have appeared in Edge magazine's excellent interviews. Shovelware is a side effect of Nintendo's approach. Take the PSX and PS2. They both have massive shovelware libraries, but they key difference is the shovelware hit the systems really late in their lives. This happened for the same reason that Nintendo approached with the Wii - as toolsets become cheaper, and developers become more adept at the hardware, smaller developers can jump in and make games on the cheap. This "long arm" approach is, surprisingly, responsible for a rather massive chunk of Sony's money, but it's never been considered a "real" gaming phenomena by gamers and journalists. But Nintendo has made it their whole approach this time, which... yes... means more shovelware hiding the great games... Both markets have always co-existed. But one usually occupies the "dying console" space, while one occupies the "shiny new console" space. Only the Wii has gone and made it so both kinds of game appear on the same shelf. Yes, but: PS3 > 360 > Wii >= Xbox > GC > PS2 So why aren't developers making Wii games as pretty, massive or interesting as PS2 games? And why not go further? A load of Dreamcast games look prettier than the Wii. Hell, many N64 and PS1 games were more ambitious in scope (if not graphics). It just underlines to me that most developers haven't learned anything from past console success stories, and continue churning out utter toss with prettier graphics, because that's the only way they know how to progress. Don't get me wrong - A good PS3/360 developer could make something good on the Wii as well. But without the graphics engines behind them, perhaps the flaws of those games would be too obvious. I dunno... Nintendo can't be all that wrong, as now Microsoft and Sony are jumping on board as well. And they will also end up with a massive pile of shovelware to go along with it. Nobody's mentioned that now, have they  |
|
|
|
Post by nocturnal YL on Jul 20, 2009 11:52:58 GMT -5
Maybe I'll put it like this:
By the time they make games for 360 and PS3, they can't cater for Wii. You're right, Fry - developers know only good graphics, and that's why they get all suddenly stuck in mind when they are asked to make games on Wii as well, even though Wii has a better approach to end users and a reportedly easy to use SDK for developers.
Apparently, they're lost on Wii. They're like "oh snap, there's no graphics to work on! So what to do, what to do..." without actually realising they're working for something better than the original Xbox. And I don't know what's on the whole control scheme thing either. If you can't implement any motion sensing control, you can still take it as a traditional console. If you can make NES games, you can make Wii games. That simple. (Don't agree? See Mega Man 9.)
Maybe the whole thing is that developers are so deeply affected by the whole "it's an entirely new concept" thing that they forgot it can be treated as an old console as well. The resolution's lower, but that's all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wildcat on Jul 20, 2009 14:20:12 GMT -5
I have a lot of thoughts on this, but I want to ponder them to make a solid post before I put them down. I'll be back.
|
|
|
|
Post by TV Eye on Jul 20, 2009 14:46:53 GMT -5
I knew about this for awhile, but what I heard was the opposite of what Fry said (developers don't want to work for Wii because they have to downgrade).
What I heard is the a lot of developers don't want to make games for the PS3 and 360 because they are apparently much harder to develop and program for than the Wii.
For instance, Valve hasn't made any PS3 games (aside from Orange Box which was ported by EA) because they can't seem to figure out the development process for the PS3 (Though they are trying to arrange a team of PS3 developers).
Anyways, the Wii is apparently the easiest to develop for, so all the top companies out right now (Rockstar, Square-Enix) will not put their expansive games on said system, which they will then have to downgrade, and no one wants that.
So, if you want Ubisoft games, the best you're gonna get on the Wii is Raving Rabbids, and if you like Final Fantasy but only have a Wii, then Crystal Chronicles is the game for you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sqrt2 on Jul 20, 2009 17:54:25 GMT -5
Could it be something to do with the fact that the PS3 and 360 use a traditional controller, whilst the Wii uses a motion-sensitive controller? Surely it take more effort to give a game motion-sensitive controls than regular controls, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Koopaul on Jul 20, 2009 18:03:17 GMT -5
Hm but what about the classic controller yes?
It seems developers have forgotten that the classic controller wasn't just made for Virtual Console titles. Miyamoto himself said that the Classic controller was made for more traditional games.
|
|
|
|
Post by Savage Adam on Jul 20, 2009 20:36:44 GMT -5
Could it be something to do with the fact that the PS3 and 360 use a traditional controller, whilst the Wii uses a motion-sensitive controller? Surely it take more effort to give a game motion-sensitive controls than regular controls, right? That's how it should be, but 75% of developers seem to see the motion aspect as simply another analog stick. i.e., little to no more effort. |
|
|
|
Post by TV Eye on Jul 21, 2009 0:30:19 GMT -5
Hey guys, PS3 does have Sixaxis...
|
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Jul 21, 2009 3:03:02 GMT -5
Why Classic Controller? Most of the "traditional control" games released on Wii use the remote and nunchuk perfectly happily. They basically combine to make one normal controller button configuration (with optional motion control, of course).
The Wii Remote motion controls CAN act as a second analogue, so even though Combo Meal considers this lazy, it's a perfectly valid option.
|
|
|
|
Post by nocturnal YL on Jul 21, 2009 5:58:05 GMT -5
Hey guys, PS3 does have Sixaxis... I think a lot of developers forget about this thing too. They are game MAKERS. They really should stop stereotyping any game system. That's what I'd say on thie subject. |
|
|
|
Post by Koopaul on Jul 21, 2009 21:37:17 GMT -5
I wish developers would sit down and THINK for once think about what they are doing and what they are going to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by TV Eye on Jul 22, 2009 1:26:33 GMT -5
It's all about the money for them.
Though, I'm surprised shit-tastic movie games keep being released. I mean...who buys those?!
Scratch that; stupid moms.
|
|
